Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

World Net Daily has now covered the file number sequence aspect.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105347

Mrs. Nordyke is still alive and well. She theorized that because her labor was so long, it is possible that two BC forms for her twins were pulled from a stack the day before the delivery (when she rolled into the hospital), whereas Obama’s mother perhaps came in afterward and had a shorter labor resulting in an earlier birth. However, everyone involved is merely speculating, because even Mrs. Nordyke has no memory of actually seeing Mrs. Obama there at the hospital during the delivery, or arriving at the hospital. Mrs. Nordyke is a very valuable source of 1st person factual information, since she remembers who the attending MD’s were during those days. Her children’s certificates are invaluable sources of verifiable information as well, and serve as references for comparison.

First, I will address the idea that birth certificates are “started” when a pregnant woman rolls in the door.

Most hospitals don’t “start” to fill out BC’s because they document live births, which is not guaranteed (especially with twins in 1961, but true still today). They are filled out a few minutes after the birth and after the “afterbirth” - when the medical situation is stable, no bleeding problems, etc. You don’t know how many live births you are going to have until you have a live screaming baby in your hands. Labor can last several days, and false labor is common. A large fraction of women presenting with a chief complaint of “labor” are not in labor. By the time a woman is known to be in labor (cervix dilation check, etc) the process is well along, and not much time is to be saved by pulling a certificate off the stack.

The only time saved would be the part with the mom and dad’s name, address, and profession, since every other field on the form (including the MD attending at the time) could change with a long labor. Obviously, the time of birth is not known until it actually occurs. That was as true in 1961 as it is today.

If the blank long-form BC papers had serialized file numbers already stamped on them when they were delivered to the hospital, this would further strengthen the practice of only starting to fill one out AFTER a live delivery, since any stillborn children would result in a major OOPS and a ruined serialized document.

We know that the serial numbers correspond at least roughly to the dates of birth / registration in the calendar year, because 10650/17592 is approximately equal to 220/365. The only practical way to make that happen is to have the file number stamped onto the form at the central Registrar General’s office. This is because births are happening continuously at large and small hospitals and doctors’ offices (and a few homes) all over the many islands of Hawaii. They could not all have distributed stacks of pre-stamped blanks, because nobody knows where and when the births will happen. You would have to ship out fresh mini-stacks of serialized blank documents to each location on a semi-continuous basis, that that is just not practical.

Therefore, the whole idea that the forms were stamped with filing serial numbers at the hospital is dubious. They were stamped with this number at the central office of the state Registrar General.

Since we have the long forms, we know that Mrs. Nordyke hadn’t signed it until 8-7-1961 and the MD didn’t sign until 8-11-1961. Therefore, those particular blanks DID NOT leave the hospital until 8-11, the day they were filed and ACCEPTED with the local registrar AND Registrar General.

Presumably, since Honolulu is the capitol of Hawaii, the office of the local registrar and the Registrar General are one and the same, which explains why both blanks on both of the Nordyke forms are stamped Aug 11 1961 with the same stamp, and individually signed by the local registrar. This also explains the “same-day” turnaround between the local and General. This assumption can easily be verified.

We know that Obama’s birth documents are alleged to have been filed with the registrar 8-8-2008, based on his non-redacted short form. We don’t know if that is the date of the “local” or “general” but if his birthplace really was Honolulu (which the short form seems to indicate clearly, legalistic interpretations aside), then his form ALSO reached the Registrar General’s office on or before 8-8-1961 in order to get that date (if he wasn’t born in Honolulu, then he has lied and misleading documents have been vouched for by public officials).

They absolutely wouldn’t roll back a date stamp if his document happened to come in on 8-11-1961 along with the Nordyke’s certificates as part of a batch shipment from Kapiolani. This would be an act of fraud, to certify a document as being on file before it actually is on file.

It is perhaps possible that the document was dropped off at the registrar’s office on 8-8-1961, stamped with that date, and then later stamped with a file number and filed on the same day as the twins’ BC’s as part of a Friday batch process. Because the Nordyke forms were only brought in to the Registrar’s office on Friday, they very well might have been “on top” of the stack.

However, that still doesn’t make any damn sense.

Hawaii had an average of 48 registered births EVERY DAY that year. Obama’s BC should therefore have not been anywhere near the “top of the stack” on Friday since his form was at the office on 8-8-1961. There should be approximately 48 in the stack for the 9th, and 48 in the stack for the 10th, and some fractions for the partial 8th and 11th. Due to the law of large numbers, there is a statistically significant difference between “2” and “96” even though the second number is stochastic and subject to innumerable sources of random variance. There is no way that on 8-9 and 8-10 only two other BC’s were dropped onto the inbox stack for batch processing.

Obama’s certificate number is alleged to be 10641. His certificate is alleged to have been in the office on 8-8-1961, and it was perhaps stamped with a filing serial number and then filed on a later date.

The Nordyke certificates are numbers 10637 and 10638. They were obviously processed back-to-back at all steps in the process, from delivery, to hospital data entry, to transmittal, to filing.

Obama’s certificate COULD not have followed a completely different path (Kapiolani to the office on or before 8-8-1961, then filed 8-11-1961) right behind the Nordykes, because there were 100 births all over Hawaii between them in the intervening time. Despite transmittal delays from different parts of the islands, a stream of 48 BC’s per day is to be expected.

Now, assume that the filing number is only stamped onto the certificates on Fridays, and the certificates from the past week are placed into “loose” alphabetical order before stamping(which explains the first-name alphabetical order reversal for the twins’ numbers). Under this scenario, there are 48x7=336 certificates to stamp and file on each Friday at the end of the day, in addition to doing all the other work for the 48 that happened to arrive during the day Friday.

The US Census publishes lists of last name frequency distribution for the total US, but there is likely a different pattern in Hawaii owing to the different ethnic distribution of the islands. The only common US names that appear alphabetically between Nordyke and Obama are Norman, Norris, and Norton.

So in other words, it is completely possible that they could be that close, but only if all of the forms are stamped at the end of the week after being put into loose alphabetical order in a stack of ~336.

If there was anything like a continuous process for filing, where documents were stamped with file numbers during the week, it is so unlikely as to be impossible.

Even ONE of the intervening certificates, 10639 and 10640, could answer the question. That person would have an N* or O* name, and would also give a few more datestamps.

Those two numbers should be broadcast, so that anyone born in hawaii within a week window knows to look for their number.


209 posted on 07/29/2009 8:20:15 AM PDT by NaNaNaNaN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies ]


To: NaNaNaNaN
Somebody's idea that we need tolocate a clerk from 1961 is a good one and see if they remember the process. I have filed hundreds of documents over the years in courts, and county recorders offices. You come in now with the document, stand in line, and the clerk examines it. If it's ok, they proceed to stamp it with a stamp that automatically has month day and document numbers stamping in sequences.

If you have a number of documents, they will all be in a continous sequence. You can also mail a document in and no telling when that will get filed, whenever its received and checked for accuracy. If the document is incorrect, has errors, or if you failed to include a check for the proper amount, they send it back to you.

212 posted on 07/29/2009 8:44:24 AM PDT by 1000 silverlings (Everything that deceives also enchants: Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies ]

To: NaNaNaNaN

Great analysis

Why not ask every and any one born Aug 1961 to come forth???


237 posted on 04/21/2010 4:30:03 PM PDT by DontTreadOnMe2009 (So stop treading on me already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies ]

To: NaNaNaNaN

Great analysis

Why not ask every and any one born Aug 1961 to come forth???


FOIA their BCs if deceased ???


238 posted on 04/21/2010 4:30:37 PM PDT by DontTreadOnMe2009 (So stop treading on me already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson